Are Liberals Coming Here To Change Minds?

[mentalarson]

While I like it as an objective, I don't think a libertarian society is possible for a number of reasons, one of which is that it requires a distribution of intelligence among the populace that doesn't exist. However, in such a society, since people would be responsible for their actions, those without criminal designs would want some kind of "insurance" for protection against financial ruin when something bad or unintended happens while using a gun. In that context, insurance companies would require some kind of training before issuing a policy to a gun owner. No one would be required to get such training, but there would be an incentive to do so, since appearing in court without it would contribute to a presumption of negligence.

How is a libertarian society going to contribute to a de facto requirement for gun-owner liability insurance? Insurance doesn't protect against people being negligent and/or stupid. i.e. does insurance or liability or consequences prevent drunk driving (some...but it still happens a LOT). The basic idea is that people must be responsible for their own actions and not expect others to take care of them. Many of us will help through many ways, but the sense of entitlement must go.

I do agree that a Libertarian society is not likely because we've spent at least two generations conditioning people to not take responsibility for their actions and that they are entitled to everything. That should not keep us from fighting for freedom and pushing back. If the world doesn't blow apart, we could still push the ball back down the field in sight of the goal line.

[VMI77]

While I like it as an objective, I don't think a libertarian society is possible for a number of reasons, one of which is that it requires a distribution of intelligence among the populace that doesn't exist. However, in such a society, since people would be responsible for their actions, those without criminal designs would want some kind of "insurance" for protection against financial ruin when something bad or unintended happens while using a gun. In that context, insurance companies would require some kind of training before issuing a policy to a gun owner. No one would be required to get such training, but there would be an incentive to do so, since appearing in court without it would contribute to a presumption of negligence.

How is a libertarian society going to contribute to a de facto requirement for gun-owner liability insurance? Insurance doesn't protect against people being negligent and/or stupid. i.e. does insurance or liability or consequences prevent drunk driving (some...but it still happens a LOT). The basic idea is that people must be responsible for their own actions and not expect others to take care of them. Many of us will help through many ways, but the sense of entitlement must go.

I do agree that a Libertarian society is not likely because we've spent at least two generations conditioning people to not take responsibility for their actions and that they are entitled to everything. That should not keep us from fighting for freedom and pushing back. If the world doesn't blow apart, we could still push the ball back down the field in sight of the goal line.

Since men are imperfect, every society is by nature imperfect. People will still drive drunk in every society where people can own cars and drive, no matter how it is governed. Remember, I'm talking not about our current society, but a libertarian society, so you have to consider the different context. Without writing a long essay, the short answer to your question is that a libertarian society would be a strict liability society. There would be a financial incentive to buy insurance to mitigate liability risk. Of course, those with little or nothing to lose would be less likely to be concerned about mitigating liability risk, but they would also have other incentives for getting such insurance, because it would be required by other parties. For example, in such a society, the range you shoot at might require proof of insurance to mitigate their liability. So, without insurance, where would people shoot? If you say their own property, then they have an incentive to buy the insurance, as they have something to lose. Also, people might not be able to get home owner's or renter's insurance if they kept or shot guns on their property without "gun" liability insurance. If you can't get home owner's insurance, you can't get a mortgage.

In many ways, a truly libertarian society would be far more strict than what we see now because the keystone of libertarianism is individual responsibility.

[nitrogen]

Changing minds goes both ways.

Personally i think both liberals and conservatives have a lot to learn from each other. If you want them to listen to you, you should listen to them. You might change for the better, too.

[K.Mooneyham]

Changing minds goes both ways.

Personally i think both liberals and conservatives have a lot to learn from each other. If you want them to listen to you, you should listen to them. You might change for the better, too.

I've been listening to liberal-progressives my whole life of 42 years on this earth...every day through the news, television, movies, music and other mass media. I believe I have an idea of what they are about by now. No personal offense intended in the least, just my opinion.

[Ameer]

Changing minds goes both ways.

Personally i think both liberals and conservatives have a lot to learn from each other. If you want them to listen to you, you should listen to them. You might change for the better, too.

I agree. Good men of all beliefs can learn much from each other if they come to the table with open minds and respect for each other. However, as recent events demonstrated, there are communists and other totalitarians who fly a "liberal" false flag. Most of them seem as close minded as any religious fundamentalist.

[cheezit]

hmmm. i didnt know gay rights cost you money my bad.
single issue, one tract people on both sides of the fence.
i have not now nor will i ever sale my sole down political river as so many do.
as far as christians not beliving in jesues well there are those that dont belive.. just as there are jews that proclaim him to be a savyor. i dont fall in to either of those groups either

yes it is possble to vote what you think is right. still be pro 2a, pro womens choice, pro gay rights and be against giving away the peoples money on ill got goods.

You made my point. So you are vehemently pro 2a and hold all of the BOR close to your heart.

But you will deny the most innocent and defenseless of all, the unborn, their right to life. You have indeed sold your soul down the river.

As I stated before if any part of a statement is a lie it is all a lie. You want all of your rights but not everyone can have theirs.

How very progressive of you.

Anygunanywhere

your post here just as an fyi

Re: Electoral Votes http://texaschlforum.com/search.php?key ... mit=Search" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"... say you want the government to stay out of your bedrooom. Tell your government to stay out of my freedom of religion. I do not have to believe in gay marriage, abortion, or any other of the so called social freedoms you insist I embrace just to elect someone to represent me in an oppressive government ..."

yet your willing to deny gays the right to be happy themselfs. guess the BOR is close to your heat as well.




none the less, I do not support adding a child who has a great likly hood to be abused, neglected, a become dependant to an aleady overburened, abused and misused system of "intitlement" for lack of a better term. so to 100% clear i will not support bringing a child in to this world that stands as a high risk to be abused and im 100% certin i dont want to have to pay for it over the long term.
then there is the knowen link of child abuse leading to lifes of crime filling our prison system causing more tax payer burdens. so yes i would trade pay a little now vs paying over the long haul.
its simply not my choice and not one i have to live with in the end its nither my body or my child.
I still dont think youll understand my view and im still ok with that too.
Here just a little fyi/tmi for you as well. Ive been married to my wife for close to 17 years she and I are unable to have childern. this is what it is in the end for us. My stance on the matter has been reafirmed after a few failed adoptions attempts. Do you have anyidea how heart breaking that is to know there is a system full of childern that the for one reason or another cant or wont ever have a family. I do first hand.
guess that makes me either evil or a lib or both to some people

and while your at it care to explain why on earth i sholud be subjected to the remote (or not so remote) possibilty of my long term tax dollars supporting yet another person?

[RiverCity.45]

leaning nither left or right and being from cali. i can assure you there are plenty of libs that are pro 2a.

It's very comforting to lump all "liberals" into the anti-gun group, but that is just a convenient shorthand fantasy that has no basis in fact. There are anti-gun liberals and there are pro-2A liberals. There is an entire forum devoted to those 2A supporting progressives. I know, I know. Some people's heads will explode just trying to grasp that reality. LOL!

Seriously, though. Just as all conservatives are not the same (e.g., recent Support by some Republicans for gun control), there are some liberals who staunchly support the 2nd A.

[77346]

Seriously, though. Just as all conservatives are not the same (e.g., recent Support by some Republicans for gun control), there are some liberals who staunchly support the 2nd A.

and at this time, all pro-gun rights/supporters of the 2A should unite regardless of political affiliation and ideology...

[chasfm11]

Changing minds goes both ways.

Personally i think both liberals and conservatives have a lot to learn from each other. If you want them to listen to you, you should listen to them. You might change for the better, too.

You know, I've really really tried that. I had a work colleague who called herself a "Floridia Flaming Liberal". We got along wonderfully on work related items but couldn't even get to the point of agreeing to disagree on any political topic. At least she wasn't like many who simply regurgitate the same talking points. But she hated guns and if she had her way, she would personally have confiscated every one of them. "Guns have no place in a civilized society." Energy, abortion, marriage, taxes, spending - you name it. There was no common ground at all. The only thing that we could agree on was that it was pointless for us to try to talk to each other on anything but work.

I'm still looking for the Liberal who is Pro 2nd Amendment who is willing to talk about the rest.

[K.Mooneyham]

leaning nither left or right and being from cali. i can assure you there are plenty of libs that are pro 2a.

It's very comforting to lump all "liberals" into the anti-gun group, but that is just a convenient shorthand fantasy that has no basis in fact. There are anti-gun liberals and there are pro-2A liberals. There is an entire forum devoted to those 2A supporting progressives. I know, I know. Some people's heads will explode just trying to grasp that reality. LOL!

Seriously, though. Just as all conservatives are not the same (e.g., recent Support by some Republicans for gun control), there are some liberals who staunchly support the 2nd A.

Alright, well let me ask some questions. Do these pro-2A progressives believe that I should be able to own an AR-15 and as many 30 round magazines as I want to without registering it, etc? And do they believe that I should be able to sell it to whom I see fit to sell it to without jumping through paperwork hoops and paying money to the Federal government and to an FFL to complete said transaction? And do they further believe that I shouldn't be vilified and called every filthy name in the book because some person with mental issues, or some criminal, commits a crime with a similar weapon? I ask these questions because I do indeed have trouble believing that the answers would be affirmative without qualifying all of said answers with some sort of rhetoric. My personal opinion, of course.

[cheezit]

leaning nither left or right and being from cali. i can assure you there are plenty of libs that are pro 2a.

It's very comforting to lump all "liberals" into the anti-gun group, but that is just a convenient shorthand fantasy that has no basis in fact. There are anti-gun liberals and there are pro-2A liberals. There is an entire forum devoted to those 2A supporting progressives. I know, I know. Some people's heads will explode just trying to grasp that reality. LOL!

Seriously, though. Just as all conservatives are not the same (e.g., recent Support by some Republicans for gun control), there are some liberals who staunchly support the 2nd A.

Alright, well let me ask some questions. Do these pro-2A progressives believe that I should be able to own an AR-15 and as many 30 round magazines as I want to without registering it, etc? And do they believe that I should be able to sell it to whom I see fit to sell it to without jumping through paperwork hoops and paying money to the Federal government and to an FFL to complete said transaction? And do they further believe that I shouldn't be vilified and called every filthy name in the book because some person with mental issues, or some criminal, commits a crime with a similar weapon? I ask these questions because I do indeed have trouble believing that the answers would be affirmative without qualifying all of said answers with some sort of rhetoric. My personal opinion, of course.

well all things being relitive it depends on how far left or right the lib your talking to leans. but does defing a progressive person really come down to just the 2nd? imo history should lead a lib to favor the 2nd anyway, with gun control really being based on the fact it stated do to raceist views.
but i dont care how many ar15's and 30rd mags you have.

[Maxwell]

A few of the newer posters seem to be attempting to persuade gun folk, that they need to adapt to what progressives consider a new paradigm - guns are bad, mmkay...and gun folk need to face up to this reality and quit being so obstinate about their rights.

Am I over reaching in my opinion about this?

Maybe...

P.S. Nope, I see no black helicopters buzzing my house, but I do need to re-shape the visor on my tinfoil hat...

Well, of course not. You're not supposed to see the Evil Black Helicopters........................

[RiverCity.45]

and at this time, all pro-gun rights/supporters of the 2A should unite regardless of political affiliation and ideology...

No argument from me on that one.

[RiverCity.45]

Alright, well let me ask some questions. Do these pro-2A progressives believe that I should be able to own an AR-15 and as many 30 round magazines as I want to without registering it, etc?
And do they believe that I should be able to sell it to whom I see fit to sell it to without jumping through paperwork hoops and paying money to the Federal government and to an FFL to complete said transaction? And do they further believe that I shouldn't be vilified and called every filthy name in the book because some person with mental issues, or some criminal, commits a crime with a similar weapon? I ask these questions because I do indeed have trouble believing that the answers would be affirmative without qualifying all of said answers with some sort of rhetoric. My personal opinion, of course.

Sure. At least, a lot of them that hang out at a particular liberal gun forum. I had to laugh recently when one person complained that he could no longer tell the difference between the posts at the liberal and the conservative forums, at least in terms of gun control. That particular forum allows for a wide range of opinions. Some are OK with registration, AWB, high-cap mag bans. Others oppose it vociferously. There are also democratic lawmakers who have decent ratings by NRA, and it's not hard to find one that supports 2A if you look hard, particularly in the southern and mid-western states.
I know that's outside the stereotype, and when we spend all of our time within an echo chamber, it becomes hard to believe there are other voices because we become so used to hearing only one.
See for yourself:
http://occupy2a.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... 40&t=17506" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... 40&t=17214" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just a small sample. One recent reply from a liberal was how glad he was that the House was controlled by Republicans right now, since that would mean likely failure of any attempts to impose significant gun restrictions.

[G26ster]

Alright, well let me ask some questions. Do these pro-2A progressives believe that I should be able to own an AR-15 and as many 30 round magazines as I want to without registering it, etc?
And do they believe that I should be able to sell it to whom I see fit to sell it to without jumping through paperwork hoops and paying money to the Federal government and to an FFL to complete said transaction? And do they further believe that I shouldn't be vilified and called every filthy name in the book because some person with mental issues, or some criminal, commits a crime with a similar weapon? I ask these questions because I do indeed have trouble believing that the answers would be affirmative without qualifying all of said answers with some sort of rhetoric. My personal opinion, of course.

Sure. At least, a lot of them that hang out at a particular liberal gun forum. I had to laugh recently when one person complained that he could no longer tell the difference between the posts at the liberal and the conservative forums, at least in terms of gun control. That particular forum allows for a wide range of opinions. Some are OK with registration, AWB, high-cap mag bans. Others oppose it vociferously. There are also democratic lawmakers who have decent ratings by NRA, and it's not hard to find one that supports 2A if you look hard, particularly in the southern and mid-western states.
I know that's outside the stereotype, and when we spend all of our time within an echo chamber, it becomes hard to believe there are other voices because we become so used to hearing only one.
See for yourself:
http://occupy2a.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... 40&t=17506" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... 40&t=17214" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just a small sample. One recent reply from a liberal was how glad he was that the House was controlled by Republicans right now, since that would mean likely failure of any attempts to impose significant gun restrictions.

Help me out here. How does a vociferous pro 2A liberal justify their complaints, say in NY State, when they put in power the very people that stripped their 2A rights away? How do they justify, in the current climate, the federal representatives they put in place coming after their 2A rights with a vengeance? Not trying to argue or stir the pot, I seriously would like to know what they have to say on those specific questions. Are they saying they regret voting for liberals, and will not do so in the future?